Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. Mehta Pharmaceuticals Indus

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal13 August 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. C/813/04-MUM

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal dismisses a Revenue appeal on the ground that the amount involved is below the monetary threshold fixed by the Government's litigation policy, as read with the High Court decisions cited, and so declines to examine the merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. IIAPPEAL NO. C/813/04-MUM

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 330/2004/MCH dtd. 9/7/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, Mumbai.]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities?

=======================================================

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai :

Appellants

M/s. Mehta Pharmaceuticals Indus. :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri C.S. Birasdar, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 13/8/2015 Date of decision: 13/8/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than `5,00,000/-.

2. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than ` 5,00,000/- and as per the litigation policy of the Government vide Boards letter F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/08/2011 read with Honble Gujarat High Courts judgments in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Shreenath Fabrics reported in 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 153 (Guj.) and the judgment of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III vs. Presscom Products reported in 2011 (268) ELT 344 (Kar.), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

(Dictated in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.S. Pruthi Member (Technical)

2 C/813/04-MUM

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free